Today on Blogcritics
Home » John Conyers, Turkeys and the Downing Street Memo

John Conyers, Turkeys and the Downing Street Memo

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It would seem that Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote a story about John Conyer’s “conference ” on the so-called Downing Street Memo.

It would seem, not in keeping with The Wapo‘s normally liberal editorial bent, that Milbank’s article was not very flattering to Mr. Conyers.

And my oh my, I thought Milbank’s article to be hilarious, refreshing and a sweet breeze in the sweaty world of spin.

Then I discover that John Conyers, a man famous for losing turkeys, more on this later, not to mention his vaunted congressional “hearings” on the Ohio vote, has responded to Milbank’s article in a letter to the editor to the WAPO.

Just in case the WAPO doesn’t publish Conyers’ letter, a Blogger got a hold of the letter and published it on his Blog.

Which I consider odd in that the Conyers’ people did not forward a copy to me, who is also a Blogger.

But judging by the content of “Brad’s Blog” I imagine ole Brad is already on the Dems’ payroll.

Thus I must, in the interest of fair and balanced, respond to Conyers’ letter to the editor and defend Dana Milbanks. From an unabashedly amused conservative perspective..


The Downing Street Memo is some sort of scribble by some two bit aide in England that is supposed to be solid proof that Cheney and Bush twisted intelligence to manipulate the reason for war. This is the document for which Conyers held his congressional “conference.”

I will post Conyers’ response to Milbank’s reporting in bold with mine own wise comments immediately below in italics.

June 17, 2005

Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman Mr. Dana Milbank The Washington Post 1150 15th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20071

Dear Sirs:

I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank’s June 17 report, “Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War,” which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post’s only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.

Oh my, John, aren’t we angry. Already I’m laughing at the title of Milbank’s article. Though I can certainly see why you take offense.

In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that “only one” member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the headline “Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight”. Other similar mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the article.

John. Do the math. Milbank’s said “only one member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate” by your own quote. Then you go on to mention when Harry Reid mentioned it on the Senate floor. You say Senator Boxer talked about during a confirmation hearing on Bolton. This is not quite the same thing as the “Senate floor” but I’ll allow your umbrage. Then you say Nancy Pelosi signed a letter. You go to great lengths citing where the Reid speech could be found and yet Milbank’s DID say there was only “one” mention on the Senate floor. Can’t we reasonably assume that Milbank was referring to Reid’s mention without all your grandstanding? Then you go on with the Boxer thing and again your mincing Milbank’s words.

But hey, you’re confusing the reader with a vomit of verbiage so perhaps you are accomplishing what you want.

The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats “pretended” a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.

So the “Republicans” denied use of taxpayer paid rooms for a publicity stunt that had never been raised or voted upon in the chambers of congress? And gasp, the Republicans went ahead and scheduled congressional business on congressional time? This is a bad thing because ,,,?

You could have used the turkey money to rent a meeting room at the Holiday Inn, John. Although I understand that you wanted your great conference in the hallowed halls of congress only Dana Milbank wasn’t buying it.

I’d say yes indeed Milbank editorialized and editorialized a bit more than is wise in what should be an impartial Journalism.

I understand it very well, John. A conservative reading the New York Times, hey, I get it.

That being said, Milbank’s comments on the decor are hilarious. Forgive me.

In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.

That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many, many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.

John, only 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing devoted to anti-Semitism is about 105 seconds too many. Thusly, one anti-Semitic brochure is also one too many.

Milbank was right to mention this. You’d certainly want him to mention any racist remarks made at a Republican conference I suspect.

All that bit about loving Israel is too much. We know your Arab contributors demanded the time.

In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me “Mr. Chairman” and says I liked it so much that I used “chairmanly phrases.” Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.

If you say so, John. Somehow I really doubt that if Senator Boxer were to introduce you to a California colleague that she would refer to you as Chairman Conyers. Though I could be wrong.
I do think Milbank got it right.

To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes up another cheap shot that I “was having so much fun that [I] ignored aides’ entreaties to end the session.” This did not occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to end the session and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was because so many Members of Congress persevered under very difficult circumstances to attend, and I thought – given that – the least I could do was allow them to say their piece. That is called courtesy, not “fun.”

Milbank didn’t refer to “your” aides, congressman. I bet there were other congress critters’ aides in that meeting imploring their boss to come along. And I bet you ignored all the whispering just as Milbank describes.

I’m quite sure “your” aides would never dare to tell you to hurry along.

By the way, the “Downing Street Memo” is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials – having just met with their American counterparts – describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank’s article.

The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn’t make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.


John Conyers, Jr.

What can I say, Mr. Conyers? Dana Milbank called it as he saw it.

Sounds like the guy got tired at once too often having his chain jerked by self-serving congress critters such as yourself.

Tell you what.

Why don’t you raise the matter of a review of the Downing Street Memo up on the floor of the House? Better, ask Nancy Pelosi to bring up the matter on the Senate floor.

Why not do this per the rules of congress; per the rules of our constitution, in front of our duly elected representatives?

Because you might lose that vote, Congressman Conyers?

Because in this country we have a democracy of a President and congress elected by the people and Mr. Conyers, that’s just the way it goes.

No, Milbank wasn’t at all fair and journalistic. He was writing a story. He injected a bit too much opinion.

Now you know how conservatives feel, every time a PBS broadcast comes on and each day the New York Times publishes its rag.

Oh, and about those turkeys, shameless Blog promo here, but I will never forget the turkey brouhaha last year coming out of Conyers’ Detroit office.

Yet it’s an opinionated thing.

But then I’m a Blogger.

I don’t pretend NOT to have an opinion.
If you like gardens, books, birds, true crime, conservative politics, humor, cooking, pop culture gossip, American Idol, The Apprentice or grandchildren, OR any one, just some, or all of the above, Visit My Blog. Each topic is compiled in one link on the sidebar that you may pick your topic of choice.

Powered by

About pat fish

  • Horatio Algeria

    Dana is a woman, you are a moron.

  • Moron

    Dana Milbank
    Born: c. 1968
    Gender: Male
    Ethnicity: White
    Sexual orientation: Straight
    Occupation: Journalist

  • Zack

    I watched the C-SPAN coverage of the House Democrats hearing on the Downing Street Minutes.

    As a life long Republican, I was impressed by the testimony of Joe Wilson and Ray McGovern.

    Why Dana Milbank of the Washington Post — which has been on the side of Democrats for decades — would ridicule this hearing is troubling.

    Has the Post gone over to the Republicans?

    I think not.

    So what is going on?

  • Temple Stark

    For more information ::: Milbank by the way – has gone – previous to this – from straight reporter to more of role as an analyst.

  • Zack

    As an analyst — he better not quit his day job.

  • mercury

    Man, this patfish person sure is an asshole.

  • Pat Fish

    Two nasty comments, from liberals no doubt.

    For when the only response the reader can garner is an insult then you’ve hit them right in the gut.

    I must smile, my asshole self.

    But John Conyers is hard to defend.

  • Jack

    You obviously didn’t read the article. For example, Milbank said CONYERS was the only member to bring it up on the floor, which the Reid example disproves. You also don’t read the papers, the turkey incident you refer to was disproven by the same paper that originally published it. Why don’t you search the website, you sloppy hack.

  • Gary

    “The Downing Street Memo is some sort of scribble by some two bit aide in England that is supposed to be solid proof that Cheney and Bush twisted intelligence to manipulate the reason for war.”

    Just FYI, the memo contains the official minutes of the meeting which it describes. This means that both parties involved reviewed it for accuracy, and explains why no one in the White House or British government will deny its authenticity.

  • Alex

    Conyers is hard to defend?

    Only a twisted mind would come up with that, in light of what the subject matter is.


  • L R

    The Downing Street Memo is some sort of scribble by some two bit aide in England that is supposed to be solid proof that Cheney and Bush twisted intelligence to manipulate the reason for war.”

    Wow, talk about radical right wing spin. That ‘two-bit aide’ you refer to happens to be the head of British Intelligence.
    If that is an example of your ‘reporting’, we’ll just go ahead and discount anything else you might say.

  • Pat Fish

    Hey, Jack,

    I gave lots of links and quotes about the missing turkeys. YOU provide nothing. Except to say it ain’t true.

    Well hell, I could say any ole thing too.

    Below, some more.

    Give me some documentation where it was disproven.

    From The Detroit Free Press :

    A Conyers staff member who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal told the Free Press that Grubbs and her cousin, Conyers’ Detroit deputy chief of staff Marion Brown, along with a former Conyers aide, DeWayne Boyd, picked up the turkeys and later gave contradictory accounts of what happened to the birds.

    AND…from the Wall Street Journal’s online site:

    The Detroit Free Press reported Tuesday that the director of Gleaner’s Community Food Bank, Agostinho Fernandes, got worried after a local court worker told a friend that he was offered free turkeys by a Conyers staffer.”

    Below, looming on the horizon, the origin of the “Downing Street Memos”.

    Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):

    Oh and about those “authentic” Downing Street memo papers, might want to re-think this too.

    The eight memos — all labeled “secret” or “confidential” — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times. Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

    The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

    Captain’s Quarters

    Let me get this straight. The guy “retyped” the memos and destroyed the originals?

    Absolutely I believe this.
    You know, you pick your battles.

    Conyers was way out of line.

    Oh, and keep up the ancient sport of ad hominum attacks.

    It shows how intelligent you are.

  • Ghostfaced Killer

    Downing Street Memo is old news. It was always obvious to me what the newcons were up to. It’s no secret that the intelligence was fixed, and that lies were told in a feeble attempt to make this war legal. There is no accountablity for corruption with this Administarion. If you lie and cheat for the Admin, then you get promoted.

  • JVIO

    LOL, gotta laugh at the desperation coming from the loony left these days.

    The DSM are about to explode in the libs faces as it turns out they are merely typed up stuff that a lib reporter from a lib newspaper SAYS are transcripts of originals.

    Dan Rather? Dan, is that you?

  • Dave Nalle

    I knew Conyers had turned himself into a laughingstock, but the fact that the WaPo gets the joke too is remarkable. Reminds me why it’s wrong to just write it off as another left-leaning journal.


  • Bob

    I’m ROFLMAO at these people try to come up with a strategy to discredit the DSM.

    First it’s the word Fixed doesn’t mean Fixed.
    Then it’s the memo was written by some two bit British aide.
    Now, the DSM are fictitious and are part of a vast left wing conspiracy. LOL

  • Chris

    I’m with Bob – there’s no defense available for this memo controversy, so those attempting to discredit it can only fall back on attacks on the person, and various other flaws in logic.

    Ever notice that when one of these guys speaks up, there’s no reference to solid fact? His entire commentary is baseless, and I feel embarrassed for myself for carrying this conversation further.

    A word of advice, patfish:

    Use facts, and stop wasting your time by being a mouthpiece.

    Form opinions based on learned information, not stereotypes of a Democratic party that aren’t timely or accurate. Once you’ve formed those opinions (which always takes time), use them to better your position, and not the position of those you hold as idols.

    If anything else, join our party. While you might not have the comradery that the Republican party mindlessly enjoys, you can easily replace that with the social atmosphere that a sewing club or gardening mailing list will provide for you. Don’t be afraid to be alone, because it means when everyone else is wrong, you still have a chance to be right.

    That being said, people like you are sending our country backwards in time, you dick.

  • Molly B

    Dana M. is a man.

    That said, I find it interesting that there is such an interest to NOT investigate the Downing Street memos.

    Why? The argument of ‘old news’ does not hold water. THe Pentagon papers were old news, but strong evidence.
    What if evidence is found that — if investigated — proves Bush lied to Congress about the war?
    Should that be ignored? If so, our Constitution means little.

    Just food for thought, for those out there so very quick to dismiss any evidence that Bush may have committed impeachable offenses.

  • Dave Nalle

    >>That said, I find it interesting that there is such an interest to NOT investigate the Downing Street memos. << I’m all for investigating the memo, but there’s just not much there to investigate, and what’s actually in the memo isn’t that shocking or embarassing or suspicious or even interesting. Why are people not interested in investigating it? Well, it’s an old document with a third hand account of something which may or may not be close to what was actually said, and even if the worst interpretation of what’s in the memo is used, it’s neither surprising or particularly interesting. The thing is that it doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know or that we really care about. Dave

  • cat

    It would take more time than I care to spend to wade through the mountain of inaccuracies of the original post above. So I’ll simply answer JVIO who thinks that the Times of London is a leftwing newspaper.

    I’m sorry you know so little about my country – the country that went to war alongside yours in Iraq – the country that has the second largest number of troops dying in Iraq.

    The Times (of London) is not a liberal newspaper. It’s a right-wing conservative paper. It’s owned by Rupert Murdoch and shares many of the same opinions as Murdoch’s New York Post – or perhaps you think that is a “liberal” paper too.

    The journalist who has been publishing these documents is also not a liberal. I despair of much of the debate that takes place among Americans on blogs like this. So many of you have reduced the whole of reality into mythical “other sides”. Lib. Con. Neocon. etc, etc, etc. Any argument that doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas is instantly dismissed as being on one of these “other sides” – and therefore must be laughably untrue.

    Congratulations America. The majority of your citizens appear to have dispensed with the need to think.

  • Hank Snow

    Typical smokescreen by the right wing MSM. Do any of you in the lunatic fringe really believe that “liberal media” crap? MSM is corporate media clearly whoring for the Repugnican party. If you don’t realize that by now you are dumber than dog droppings.
    The Downing Street Minutes are clearly the smoking gun of this regime’s lies and deceit that pushed us into this Iraqi quagmire. Notice the “this is old news” talking point from the fringe? Very much on point, as always. Dead wrong, but on point.

  • begoniabuzzkill

    By the way ……… the British/American document created, presented to Congress and Parliament claimed as “study” analyzing the “threats from Sadam” were actually plagiarized from a twelve year old school paper done by an American student …. NOT a study done by M16 or the CIA …… the head of M16 refuted the publicized study and reprimanded Blair for issuing documents not cleared by M16.

    At least while in Yale Bush paid for his cheat sheets.

  • Dave Nalle

    >>The Downing Street Minutes are clearly the smoking gun of this regime’s lies and deceit that pushed us into this Iraqi quagmire.<< It seems to me that to be a ‘smoking gun’ there would need to be something in the memos which was either alarming or surprising. Since all the memos have is unremarkable fourth hand transcriptions of third hand commentary on second hand discussion of actions which weren’t controversial or radical in any way, I don’t see how they qualify as a ‘smoking gun’. Dave

  • M Paulding

    Patfish, at last estimate, 57% of the American people say the Iraq war isn’t worth it. You and Dana Milbank can make light of Conyers’ hearing if you choose to, but in doing so you are also insulting Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq. She considered Conyers’ meeting important enough to testify before it. I don’t think Cindy Sheehan is laughing. I’m certainly not.

  • M Paulding

    From William F. Buckley, Jr., “The Mounting Protests,” June 17, 2005.

    “A respect for the power of the United States is engendered by our success in engagements in which we take part. A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride. It can’t reasonably be disputed that if in the year ahead the situation in Iraq continues about as it has done in the past year, we will have suffered more than another 500 soldiers killed. Where there had been skepticism about our venture, there will then be contempt.”

    Chew on that, Mr. President. It’s called hubris.

  • Joe Mama

    What I would like to know is how many of you morons who suggest the DSM is not real have kids over in Iraq. You people who support this war and don’t have anything invested in it are pitiful. And by supporting the crimes of those in power, you will end up the same as them in the end, in hell. Stock up on the suntan lotion ladies and gents!

  • Jack

    Pat: Lies Lies Lies.

    It is so painful and sorry that I have to do your searching for you (article below). You are obviously so damn sloppy you can’t do it yourself. I guess you are too busy smearing people to actually search the archives of websites.

    By the way, you didn’t even answer the other thing I said: “You obviously didn’t read the article. For example, Milbank said CONYERS was the only member to bring it up on the floor, which the Reid example disproves.”

    Why should any of your crap be taken seriously when you make these obvious mistakes? Pitiful.

    January 8, 2005

    Conyers gives food bank answer on turkeys


    The head of Gleaners Community Food Bank said Friday that U.S. Rep. John
    Conyers, D-Mich., has provided him with an accounting of what happened to 60
    Thanksgiving turkeys that some of Conyers’ staffers thought might not have
    gone to poor people.

    “It appears to me that they have in fact accounted for all 60 turkeys, ”
    said Agostinho Fernandes, executive director of the food bank in Detroit.


  • Dave Nalle

    >>Conyers is hard to defend?

    Only a twisted mind would come up with that, in light of what the subject matter is. << True enough, Alex. There is no defence for utter lunacy. Dave

  • Adrian

    “Which I consider odd in that the Conyers’ people did not forward a copy to me, who is also a Blogger.”

    Learn to write English, pup.

  • Richard Rudolph

    The Downey Street Memo should not come as a surprise to anyone. Everyone should know that George W. Bush is a puppet for the oil corportations who put him in office. Any intelligent person should have known they would use any excuse to gain control of Iraq oil.
    He is unqualified and let the impeachment begin!!

  • Dave Nalle

    Sadly you can’t impeach people for being unqualified, Richard. If you could we’d impeach you as a commentor for typing ‘Downey’ instead of ‘Downing’.


  • Robert

    Where does this madness end? Those who deride Conyers — what are you people? Nasty comments about Conyers, the Memos, content, timetrack of events, falsehoods, murders, deaths, poisons, cover-ups — what is being supported here by railing against Conyers or those who oppose Bush’s psychotic madness for multinational corporations? The Bush supporters seem to want to play “Republicans vs. Democrat.” The real game is more like sanity vs. insanity. How can anyone with a shred of conscience support Bush’s illegal war and how it began and on what pretenses. How can anyone in their right mind accept to any degree this level of criminality by government/big business? Bush has ass-raped this country, the Treasury, the military and handed it all over on a silver platter to Halliburton in full view of everyone. Right in your face crimes, brazen. The media went brain dead, could not or would not connect the dots which were all there long before 911, stemming back to the first Gulf war and straight to a brain-dead Reagan. I have no idea what the Bush supporter envisions for their country or the world. There’s 1/3 of a viable Earth left for an expanding worldwide population which now cannot support it. What are the games our “leaders” are playing? Games of personal greed and madness and toxicity which will untimately kill them and their future progeny as well rather than take a real leadership role and work toward making what’s left viable, sane and healthy for all life.

  • Dave Nalle

    Robert, perhaps the problem is that Conyers sounds and acts insane when he rants about reparations and impeachment, and the things Bush says make sense to anyone who hasn’t based their entire worldview on alarmist propaganda.


  • John Galt


    A source at a major news organization has leaked details concerning a bombshell story that reveals transcripts of accurately transcribed telephone conversations between President Bush and Representative John Conyers. The original transcripts were secretly released to a Washington newspaper reporter who then xerox copied them, returned them to the White House staffer that provided them whereupon accurate typed copies were made prior to destroying the xeroxed copies. Here is a brief part of what they contain. A release of the entire transcripts is slated for print sometime later this week and should represent the next round of conflict in a seeming endless stream of conflict for the Bush administration.

    President Bush: Hello, John.

    Representative Conyers: Yes sir, Mr. President, hello.

    President Bush: John, I don’t want to take up any more of your time than I need to; I know you’re very busy but I’ve got another problem I need you to help me with.

    Representative Conyers: Yes sir, what can I help you with.

    President Bush: Well, it’s the darndest thing and I guess it goes to show that we may have gone a bit overboard on the intimidation thing but I need you to act as the designated opposition again.

    Representative Conyers: Oh, Mr. President, why me again?

    President Bush: Now John, we…

    Representative Conyers: I led the opposition during the Ohio voting incident; can’t you get Cynthia McKinney to do this one?

    President Bush: Well, John we’ve thought of every possibility and it’s just that nobody has such a strong grip on their constituency like you do. You doing this actually helps you in the 14th District. Cynthia, well, look what happened to her when she acted as the token opposition right after the job. Your popularity went up as a result of Ohio. Cynthia is liable to get booted out again, Georgia ain’t Highland Park.

    Representative Conyers: Yes, I know what you’re talking about but I don’t really think I’m as invincible in Detroit as you think. The fact that we’re never successful in our opposition might begin to make people suspicious.

    President Bush: Look, John, they fell for the terrorists with boxcutters story and the WMD’s in Iraq story and the Hunter Thompson committed suicide story. We’re talking about people that want to be fooled. They don’t want any complications in their life. Just as long as they have the comfortable notion that there’s an opposition to whoever is governing.

    Representative Conyers: How about Barbara Boxer or Ted Kennedy? John Kerry?

    President Bush: They’re too vulnerable plus they’re dunces. I need you John. I wouldn’t ask if me and my staff didn’t think you were necessary. Will you do it?

    Representative Conyers: Well, I don’t want to but I will. I assume there will be something in it for me?

    President Bush: Well, for starters, how’s staying out of jail sound but do you remember you telling me about that abandoned Ford Plant smack dab in the middle of your District?

    Representative Conyers: Yes, I do.

    President Bush: Well, if you pull this off for me and make it look good but not too good and steer plenty clear of 911 then you’ll have a brand spanking new federal prison built there with all the good stable jobs that come with such a facility.

    Representative Conyers: Oh my, Mr. President. I will do my best. What form is my opposition to take?

    President Bush: Well, I don’t know the full details but I’ll have one of my staff sent over to brief you on the plan but it has something to do with some memos that are going to reveal I knew there weren’t any WMDs before the war in Iraq started. We’ve got it covered and its gonna be a bunch of smoke but no fire. Think you can handle it?

    Representative Conyers: With anything to replace that abandoned Ford plant I could get elected forever in my district if I wanted. Thank you, Mr. President.

    President Bush: Thank You John, I’ll talk to you soon.

    Representative Conyers: Goodbye.

  • zookeeper

    Hey Cat, the problem with people like JVIO, and others is that any thing that can be read that is not a direct quote from the administration or has any scent of truth to it is automatically considered to be “liberal” and therefore must be discredited.

  • Dave Nalle

    Galt, if only Conyers were a paid-off shill rather than a genuine lunatic people might take him more seriously.


  • Jared Hautamaki

    As a former Conyers staffer, Detroiter, and law student first I have to say that you have no right to call a 40+ year Member of Congress by his first name. I worked for him for five years and I wouldn’t dare call him by his first name. Your disrespect of him and the office he holds detracts from whatever few intelligent comments you made.

    Secondly, the Bush’s Administration falsification of WMD documents, false testimony at the UN, and heavy handed actions with the media are all reasons to doubt the veracity of the Administrations “justifications” for war in Iraq. Not to mention a father who failed to expend the political capital he had when we “defended” Saudi Arabi and Kuwait the first time by going to Baghdad and removing Saddam when we had the chance.

    Instead we wasted 10 years and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to mount an invasion premised on retribution and avenging 41’s failures.

    If there is a more disgusting and imperialist reason for invasion of any country, anywhere, at any point in history I have yet to hear it.

    To many troops and too many Iraqi civilians have been lost in a fight that only increases our risk of attack by terrorists as our continued presence and clumsy military diplomacy continue to anger young muslims around the world. Guantanamo only serves to underscore this point.

    Your disrespect for a man who has given his life to our country (Conyers served two years in Korea) is boorish and ignorant. Give a few years at an underpaid and underappreciatted position on Capitol Hill and maybe, just maybe you could speak with some authority.

    I may not agree with most Republicans, but I give their ideas, their elected officials, and their beliefs the respect that they deserve.

  • John Galt

    Jared Hautamaki–None of them. And I mean NONE of them are deserving of ANY respect. They all stink in the nostrils of GOD! Absence of dissent is evidence of tyranny. The only thing that can make it worse is for someone like John to pose as a nonexistent dissent all while purposefully being ineffective as to not cause any real change. John is the worst in Congress. His district has dramatically declined in population. His district has dramatically declined in prosperity. His district has the highest unemployment rate in the country. His district is rife with crime. His district is so corrupt that drug deals and drug use happen openly in the front yards of his slums that once were fine neighborhoods. John is an enemy of the people. John district conspicuously started going downhill the moment he was elected. John should be in jail awaiting execution along with all the other cons in the government that seditiously remain purposefully ineffective.

  • Dave Nalle

    “As a former Conyers staffer, Detroiter, and law student first I have to say that you have no right to call a 40+ year Member of Congress by his first name. I worked for him for five years and I wouldn’t dare call him by his first name. Your disrespect of him and the office he holds detracts from whatever few intelligent comments you made.”

    Conyers has so completely discredited himself and his office and the Congress as a whole that he’s lucky that people call him anything but scum. The fact that the people of Detroit put up with such shoddy representation is a sad commentary on the corruption and gullibility of the inhabitants of that city.

    “Your disrespect for a man who has given his life to our country (Conyers served two years in Korea) is boorish and ignorant. Give a few years at an underpaid and underappreciatted position on Capitol Hill and maybe, just maybe you could speak with some authority.”

    Well, I did do my time on Capitol Hill as both a volunteer and a paid staffer, though I never met Rep. Conyers while I was there. And while I worked with and for some big egos, none of the representatives I worked with were as self-serving and unprincipled as he has proven himself to be. His constant dissemination of lies about the 2004 election and his grandstanding on the war in Iraq are just the tip of the iceberg in his littany of shame.